scribblet

Total nonsense.

Please don't impute words or thoughts to me. Where did I say I had a problem with people needing a licence. I agree with Pal and the FAC.

Pets ?? The RCMP and Military who took possession of the guns wrapped them in police tape and wrote on the tape the address where the gun was taken from. This info was also recorded in the officers notebook. While their intentions may well be to return the firearms, they want proof of ownership. How many people would have a sales receipt for a 40 or 50 year old gun? Also, they will want to see a PAL.

Shoot, and here I thought it was Harper - silly me.

Surely you are not serious, she's helping people, if she didn't no doubt you wouldn't like that.

I got this in an email and no link, so am posting the whole thing. CANADIAN SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION / CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION TEAM CSSA SPECIAL REPORT - June 28, 2013 RCMP's high-handedness in High River reveals gun confiscation agenda Residents leave firearms in houses during flood evacuation - so what? The RCMP in High River, Alberta have breached and sullied their contract with the public to serve and protect. When private citizens were forced to evacuate the town as flood waters threatened their safety, police and the military forcibly entered the abandoned residences and confiscated firearms. They police admit they seized "a large quantity of firearms," and claimed that public safety was at stake. They did not explain how the firearms posed a threat -- because there wasn't one. "This act of aggression is further proof that the RCMP have a not-so-hidden agenda to take guns away from responsible gun owners," says Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CILA) and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association CSSA). "How is leaving your home for a flood any different than leaving to watch the kids play hockey or go on vacation? The police went rogue and operated way beyond their mandate. They spun out of control under the guise of being public safety caretakers. In these situations, the police simply secure the area and refuse admittance to non-residents. "The RCMP has much to answer for by stealing guns from private citizens," adds Bernardo. "We are advised that the Prime Minister's Office will examine whether the rights of Canadians have been ignored by the police. I am confident that the federal government will deal swiftly with those who have portrayed Canada as a police state in the eyes of the of the world. While the poor souls of High River clean up their homes, the government needs to clean up Canada's law enforcement agency. The government must run the police, not the other way round." The police have a mandate to safeguard homes from looters and criminals during a natural disaster. The RCMP prohibited the public from entering the flood zone, including residents who wanted to inspect the damage in their residences. With police and military guarding the flood perimeter and patrolling streets, there was no need to break into private homes. CSSA/CILA wants an investigation into whether houses with firearms were specifically targeted. If the homes were hand-picked, it could be evidence that the RCMP has retained and still uses the data from the federal firearms registry that Parliament ordered scrapped. Firearms owners are seeking assurance that the registry data is not available for clandestine police searches. "The residents of High River have good cause to be angry and they are making themselves heard," adds Bernardo. "Someone told a reporter it's like living in Nazi Germany, and that there is some shameful truth to that statement. There are many excellent police officers out there who recognize that responsible firearm owners obey the law. Unfortunately, sometimes they are led by police officials who issue commands like this one. If the RCMP are looking for looters, they only need a mirror"

Those people are still not being allowed back into their homes, even though it's dry now. The whole thing is weird and needs more explanation. From reports I have read, from people involved in the confiscation of guns in High River, they broke into the houses, THEN found the guns. They didn’t look through the living room window and see guns on the coffee table. I have also heard reports that they searched in closets and behind dressers. Not exactly what I would call “in sight.” The fact that these guns were in a locked home should have been enough and police should never be allowed to break into people’s homes on a wholesale scale such as they did in High River. Gun owners go on vacation don't they, does this mean that the RCMP can break into your home while you are on holiday, search your home then confiscate your property ? A long-gun is considered to be under “safe storage” if it has a trigger lock, or is in a locked container. There is no legal definition of a locked container. Is not a locked house a “container”? Especially when it is patrolled by armed RCMP and Military? Having your home broken into by the authorities and your property taken is about as bad as it gets. Can you imagine if they did that in the U.S.

So, has anyone read anything about Gawker's money, did they donate it yet, or ?

I don't think martial law was ever declared plus if they had the area cordoned off looters couldn't get in either. Actually, they may have been able to do it under C-68 as it was only the gun registry itself that was done away with. Another reason the Tories should've canned the whole bill. It bothers me that they could actually break and enter, then somehow get the firearms which are supposed to be in a hard to open lock box. Where these guns just sitting by the door or what, and if not, how did they open the gun safes.

I'm wondering under what law the RCMP can break into people's homes and seize firearms without warrants etc. I'm not clear if they broke into every house looking for firearms, or if they knew which houses had them. If they knew then how did they get access to that information as the gun registry is now defunct. Were all of these seized firearms just sitting around the house unsecured, or did they also break into the required secured lock boxes. If they did, that would take some doing as the storage container has to be hard to break into. The town was cordoned off so no one would be getting in and stealing them so this seems big over the top to me. http://firearmslaw.ca/gun-law-resources/firearms-storage-transportation/ http://www.canada.com/news/alberta/RCMP+seized+High+River+firearms+from+homes+control/8588851/story.html

LOL you are funny

Here's one http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/30/poll-worker-who-voted-for-obama-multiple-times-convicted-of-voting-fraud-73217 129% turn out ? http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/35319922188/voter-fraud-boston-reports-129-voter-turnout-79-for

If just Chow, Tory and Ford ran, I'd say Chow would win. If Ford or Tory ran alone, it would be a close race, I think Tory could win ( or Ford) against Chow, but no doubt there will be other contenders. I know Tory lost the election over the voucher issue but to me, he's really a centrist and the more I listen him when I can, the more I respect his views. I believe he's a man of integrity and would make a splendiferous Mayor of Toronto. Does he really support additional 'revenue tools' i.e. higher taxes for transit ?

No, but does anyone know what Gawker has done with the money

Of course there was a media reaction at the time, there are more links to articles talking about it... Of course it’s okay for Liberal party researchers to use their taxpayer funded partisan Liberal research bureau to write a partisan story about taxpayer-funded Conservative partisans - protesting a previous story about a taxpayer-funded politician’s transparency pledge that happens to leave out his private business of raising money from taxpayer-funded charities. And someone else posing with tax payer funded partisans...

You asked for an instance of a PMO engineered partisan and I gave you one. The observer was sent after they had to pull the squad, because of problems with the squad being 'misunderstood' and all. So yea, two wrongs don't make a right, but naturally die hard partisans wouldn't admit that other parties get up to partisan antics all the time. So - whatever,

I didn't see the whole thing, only what is shown on the news, it was pretty bad. As one writer says: egregious, outlandish, disingenuous and outrageous He's accusing his opposition of not wanting the truth as this is strictly a partisan exercise to bring down an elected gov't. Wow, shades of the far left Council of Canadians, and Paul Magdar.

Where did I say you were a die-hard partisan Liberal ? Liberal truth squads sent by Pearson http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/featured/election-of-1963 They had plenty of ideas, but Dief was so good at theatrics that the Liberals resorted to their own. Pearson sent one of his lieutenants, Judy LaMarsh, to shadow the Conservative chief and expose his falsehoods and contradictions. The prime minister’s response was to make her part of his platform routine.

In ALL states, or just some ?

Oh boo hoo, really - cry me a river. Of course the research done by the liberals to identify the people was using taxpayer's money, cos the party research offices are funded by the taxpayers. So the Liberals can hardly complain about Conservatives using taxpayer’s money for partisan activities when they are doing the same thing. Only the diehard partisans will debate the minutia of those issues but really, at the end of it all the average Canadian saw the protest and will likely remember only that. BTW, anyone remember the Liberal "Truth Squads"

Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address. that's ID Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you (both of you will be required to make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector. You also have to be a Canadian citizen but they don't ask for proof. ID is required in some form... and in Ontario http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/media/en/E0599_Identification_Requirements_for_Voting_in_Ontario_Provincial_Elections_12-2010.html

I guess not all States require it. http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx Alabama will become a photo ID state in 2014 if its new law receives pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Mississippi and Texas have new strict photo ID laws which may take effect in future elections if they receive pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Wisconsin's new strict photo ID law was held unconstitutional on March 12, 2012. So, section 4 was struck down but not section 5... does that mean their new laws will not take effect, and for petes sakes, why would it be unconstitutional to require photo ID ? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323469804578521363840962032.html I highly doubt that Texas would flat out try to make it illegal for minorities to vote. IMO that's a real stretch.

If I understand this correctly, all this does is allow some states to make changes to voting laws without having to get permission from the Feds. Which I suppose means, these states could require ID from voters,which I believe was considered discrimination against minorities. I don't see how requiring ID is discriminatory, federally at least, Canadians have to have ID, and rightly so... http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-usa-court-voting-idUSBRE95O0TU20130625

The original Iranian article did not tell the whole story, it omitted pertinent information such as the judge ruling that the calls did not affect the election results etc. etc. Other news outlets reported the whole thing (well, I didn't check the Star - ) therefore, the Iranian site can be called a propaganda site because it was only reporting on the part it wanted people to see.

Truly one is a partisan hack if one glosses over the rest of it, (I'm not repeating again). Truly one is a partisan hack if one ignores that fact that no one was prevented from voting, Yes there was something going on that's all we know. Either way, it did not change the results of the election. If someone is found they should be prosecuted, but there is no proof - nada - that the election results would be any different.